In an attempt to build upon PunkJohnnyCash’s previous articles surrounding the anarchist alienation of the working class, its important to analyze the state of the working class today.
In short, the condition of the working class is not preferable. Much of the working class has fallen into the trappings of neoliberalism and right-wing authoritarianism. In the United States, where the working class was guided by openly socialist trade unions, we now have an disorganized, cannibalistic, and reactionary labor aristocracy that only alienates the working class which is becoming evermore and object of Capital.
So, what happened; and is the situation salvageable?
To immediately answer the latter question, yes. If I did not believe the situation was salvageable I would not waste time attempting to reconcile these failures.
This only begs the question. Why are we where we are now? The answer is simple: we tried to fix what wasn’t broken. In almost every way imaginable, the Old Left of radical labor unions, worker organizations, and parties was far more successful than this New Left of academic fetishism and infantile “movements”.
Sounds brutal, but it its truly nauseating having to deal with these lifestyle “revolutionaries” who think smashing windows before the block party every Thursday at the frat house is “radical”.
Here are three simple reasons why the Imperialist parties and their bourgeois ideologies are dominating the working class:
1. They’re on the ground; in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the school systems, in churches, at community events. The right-wingers are able to recruit the working class simply through association. The fact is that our numerical deficiency only compounds our duty to be out in the community; being involved in the social processes that bring awareness to political issues. We once had a clear advantage in the work place through labor unions that were dominated by socialist left propagandizing. We allowed ourselves to be undermined in the unions by moderates and liberals and now, if relevant at all, the left branches of labor are only shells of former influence.
2. They can relate. The fact is when most working class people turn on the television to find black clothed juveniles creating havoc in the city they don’t cry: “wow, I should be out there too!” Most, including myself, will simply sigh at the mess they will be cleaning up Monday morning. The right-wing pundits have a way of making themselves out to be populists; fair minded working men and women, just looking out for their best interests like you and I. The Left is painted, partly due to our own accord, as distant psuedo-intellectuals, idealists, and childish provocateurs who cannot relate to the average working person. What a sad reality this is.
The situation is so desperate some among the radical left are calling for us to abandon the working class, cut our losses, and focus on some sort of autonomous movement against the state and oppression.
I cannot fathom a worse idea. There is no way to inspire an anti-capitalist revolution without inspiring those who are most exploited by said capitalist property relations. If we cannot empower the working class to throw off her chains, then to whom shall we empower? I would rather not be a Communist and accept a completely passive existence than hope to inspire some non-working class autonomous “revolution” of likely middle class egoists.
3. They can deliver. Face it, although we now have some allies in the academia, the New Left has simply not delivered like the Old Left; and even our allies such as Chomsky and Zizek, become increasingly irrelevant and passive as time goes on.
The right-wingers, as well as liberals, make excellent use of politics. They campaign on the simplest improvements for the life of the average worker, and when those improvements are made, they ride that cow until election day. Clearly, these careerist politicians could care less for the struggle of the worker, but with their mastery of politics they are able to effectively secure their power and influence by feigning sympathy for working class struggles. How can we hope to deliver as such when we hardly attempt to influence the mainstream policy as much as the bourgeois politicians?
All of this builds into a strong allegiance to the right-wing (including the Democratic Party) among the working class.
What Can We Do?
To be fair, the situation looks grim. Far grimmer the more you take time to examine it. So what can we do?
First, get organized. This should be our foremost duty as revolutionaries. We must become an organized and popular front against capitalism. Organize your friends and local sympathizers into community action groups for workers interests and popular causes. Join an authentic socialist organization, association, or party. If there are several splinter groups, try to bring them together. Sectarianism at this point, especially among possible comrades, is our greatest enemy. Every attempt must be made to reconcile our differences and accept a reasonable and appealing program against capitalism and the capitalist political hegemony.
Do not let the call for a popular front be confused with a call for allying with the liberals or individualist, egoist, or bourgeois groups. The Popular Front should be a collective effort of communists, and non-communists; marxists and non-marxists, against capitalism. It should be lead by the most advanced in theory and those strongest revolutionaries within the working class.
Second, develop a program and stick to it. While it is very clear that our revolutionary movement has the goal of crushing capitalism, this is not an achievable goal at the moment. Possibly not in the next decade. What is possible is organizing the working class and its allies, and winning strategic victories over the capitalist class. Therefore, a program of socialists should be developed around winning these strategic victories, but not at the compromise of political subordination as has happened with the CPUSA. The revolutionary Left should not become henchmen of the Democratic Party or liberal politicians; nor should we place our faith in these bourgeois puppeteers.
The importance of strategic victories runs parallel to the importance of class consciousness. By creating a list of short-term goals, battles that can be won, we can create an illustration of our struggle. Tangible and visible achievements that can inspire the working class to take even bolder action against their oppressors.
We must find the strength among our own power to implement our program and win the battle against the capitalist class.
If one can take anything from this message it is a call for urgency. We are losing the battle. Even if the financial oligarchy were to tank tomorrow, there is no guarantee the working class could take power for itself. The organization, the theory, the consciousness, is just not there.
We cannot look to anyone but ourselves for the solution. We must be that solution to the problems we at least partially created.
J. Robert Oppenheimer born in 1904 is often referred to as “The Father of The Atomic Bomb.” He was director of the Manhattan Project in World War II, which developed the first nuclear weapons. His legacy will forever be a reign of death entwined with the likes of Monsanto who played a significant role in research in uranium and their aid in creating the greatest tool of mass murder known to humankind. This is the face of the United States. We will see corporations, religion and the state working together to bring a kind of murder and devastation to the earth the likes of which are unparalleled in human history. The amount of innocent civilians slaughtered will never be known. The initial number was somewhere around 80,000. The final number has been estimated to reach anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000.
“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that one way or another.”
What I find most interesting in his comment is the relevancy of the Gita. This is a scripture that has inspired Anarchists, Peace-mongers and those who would wage war. Herman Hesse, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, Carl Jung, Aldous Huxley and more found inspiration in the Gita. Gandhi found inspiration for his self sacrifice in the Gita. I do take issue with some of the self sacrifice concept for it is one states and religions have used to justify oppression for ages.
Like much of the Tanakh or what the Christian religions would call the Old Testament the Gita tells a tale of justification for warfare. The one God demands slaughter or murder. To minimize the Gita as being only justification for murder would be to minimize the scripture and all it has to say. It is important to note the many instances that holy scriptures justify actions such as war. In the Tanakh we see many books of history where men claim that the acts of aggression they commit were in the name of God.
“David! What the hell are you doing?”
“Woaw Wha.. Oh yeah um, no it’s okay God told me to do this.”
“God told you to smash babies on the rocks?”
“Yeah, you know they’re Babylonian babies (awkward pause) It’s not bad. (awkward pause) It’s a blessing.” [Psalm 137:9]
“That’s fucked up David.”
“Well, you know God works in mysterious ways.”
The violence stands in stark contrast to the book of Isaiah where the message seems to be that God is angered because of the violence and oppression. Many holy scriptures seem to have two opposing views on this topic. On one hand it is good and just on the other it is rejected and evil. It becomes clear how religion can quickly become a tool of the oppressor as it has over the centuries.
The Bhagavad Gītā or Gita for short translates simply to “The Song Of God.”The content of the Gita is the conversation between Lord Krishna and the Pandava Prince Arjuna taking place on the battlefield before the start of the Kurukshetra War. Responding to Arjuna’s confusion and moral dilemma about fighting his own cousins, Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince, and elaborates on different Yogic and Vedantic philosophies, with examples and analogies. [ via wikipedia]
History preserves the words of the murders. Watching Oppenheimer speak is like watching the regret of the murder who was placed on death row waiting on the mercy seat. The words of the killer are preserved. The victims are silent and for a reason. The victims are not able to speak for themselves. They lived their lives and upon the crime of the murderer they are silenced from ever saying their piece. If we could hear the voices from the graves what would they say to death, the destroyer of worlds? The might of the empire is the silence of the opposition and all who were subject to the might and tyranny of the opposition. We are now able to blame the victim, for they have no voice to speak their opposition. This is nothing new. This has been the tale of religions and governments through history. There is the voice of the victim. There is the voice of peace that opposed such.
With holy scriptures preserved by the victors who were often a church or religious association or a state, is it any wonder so much was canonized or survived that would justify the conqueror? Our schools teach the voices of mostly white western males. Why? Because they were the conquerors. What knowledge we preserved was knowledge of the oppressors. This gives us cause to question much of what we are taught, but even more so what is not often taught in schools. Is it any wonder there is so much justification for the murderous actions of the powers that be? As Howard Zinn Pointed out there are three holy wars in U.S. history. They are The Revolutionary War, The Civil War and World War II. We see the nation has a sense of pride in these wars. Many look to them as the points that force and murder brought ‘liberty’. They are for the most part without critique. The nation glorifies these moments of violence.
Listening to Oppenheimer I get the feeling that he who held so much guilt did not leave this war unquestioned. To hear him speak you can almost hear the truth at conflict with the lie of power through violence.
As Oppenheimer speaks you hear the remorse. In his mind he was acting in the ‘greater good.’ This is the belief we have been raised to accept. The greater good is the good of the aggressive force. As you listen to him speak there is a questioning of what he did. Do we think that “in one way or another” as he stated? The sad reality is that many often do not. The violence is removed. Here was the height of human technology displayed on it’s debut with the mass murder of countless victims. Unknown souls lost to history, forgotten. Perhaps the United States Empire should have reflected on the nature of what it had revealed itself to be. If the Empire could talk the most appropriate thing for it to utter then, and even now would be that simple phrase “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”
In response to my speaking the truth against this murder many will utter the phrases they often utter to defend the mass inhalation of human beings. They will echo the voices of the murders throughout history. They will reflect the voice of the victor. We have been raised to do so. We have not questioned our actions. We teach our children the victors are justified in their victory.
Howard Zinn said:
I volunteered for the Air Force in World War II and flew bombing missions over Europe. I did it because it was the “good war”; it was a right war; it was a just war.
Well, after I got out of the war, I began to think and think, sometimes. I began to research and go back over things and learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki because when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. I had just finished my missions in Europe and was going to go to the Pacific to continue dropping bombs. Then the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the war had ended soon after. Wow, that was great. I welcomed it.
Did I really know what happened when that bomb was dropped on Hiroshima? Did I know what happened to those people? Did I have any idea what that meant to those hundreds of thousands of people, of those men and women and children? No, I did not. When I began to think about that, then I began to think about the people under my bombs whom I hadn’t thought about. I never saw them. Flying at 30,000 feet you don’t see anybody; you just drop bombs.
Warfare today is a very antiseptic thing. People blithely – they send some Predator missiles without any pilots at all, right? That’s easy. We’ll just kill people and we won’t even take any chances of having anybody shot down.
Three months before Nagasaki, we sent planes over Tokyo to fire bomb Tokyo, and 100,000 people were killed in one night in the bombing of Tokyo.
Later, when I visited Japan and I talked to people there, and later when I visited Hiroshima and met with people who were survivors of Hiroshima – and you should have seen them: people without legs and arms and blind and so on. When I could actually see what that meant, that war, the fifty million dead in the war. You can say, well, we defeated fascism. Well, did we? Did we really?
Even in Howard Zinn’s case it is the voice of the murderer that has survived. Why is it the voices that have spoken against their violence dictated by the state are often silenced or those we do not wish to hear? Is it perhaps because we will have to look at what we paid for, voted for and supported? Is it because the truth is better left as far away as possible like the pilot dropping the bombs from afar of the drone attack? Inflicting murder by distance seems to be much easier for it allows us to ignore and deny to ourselves the murder we commit.
It is common knowledge that Albert Einstein also had his hand in this bomb with Oppenheimer. How did Einstein feel about the subject?
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
If so many refuse to blame the individuals who pulled the trigger, or dropped the bomb who then is held accountable? Are the individuals who told them to commit the act held accountable for their actions? The responsibility seems to keep climbing uphill until the position or title of the one who requested the murder is untouchable. The system is structured so wonderfully that nobody need be held accountable for their actions. The victims are voiceless because they are often a corpse in a home somewhere that was invaded and turned into a battlefield. So who cries out for justice?
Sometimes I remember things as if it didn’t even happen. It’s strange. They make me scared to think about. I don’t know what to think half the time. I remember the whiskey lockers. They were just closets in the squad bays on Parris Island. I remember being told they don’t hit or abuse recruits. I was told it through boot camp and I was told it throughout my career in the Marines. I remember people talking about how great it was now how watered down it is compared to what used to happen.
I also remember something I can’t quite remember. It’s strange. It is vague but when I try to think about it I get a sinking feeling in my gut. I get scared. I remember being dragged into the whiskey locker. I though I was hit, I thought I was punched. I thought I was beat to the ground. I remember boots kicking me in the gut in the side and in the head. I remember my eyes ere closed and I was holding myself up just an inch or so from the ground with my toes and arms in a push-up position just having to hold myself there as I was kicked.
What’s wrong Thayer? Hu? What’s wrong? Not going to make it? That’s what I hear in that scratchy gruff voice. It wasn’t screaming like it usually was, it was lower. I could hear his real voice in there not the growl he ordered the recruits around with. I remember his face smiling with each kick as I was threatened and told not to let myself touch the ground. I remember being told when I was pushing my body up too high. I remember the kicks when I collapsed on the floor. It doesn’t sound right. It doesn’t even seem real most of the time. It’s confusing for me. I’m not feeling good writing this. I feel scared and anxious. The floor smelled like Aqua velvet. I remember the yellow paint container open.
He would remind me a few times a week. If I was on the ground doing push-ups, or at the rifle range in the prone position firing my rifle. He would give me a quick light kick to the stomach or ribs and smile at me.
I remember thinking nobody could hear or see us in the whiskey locker. There was paint on the ground. I was painting campaign covers. It’s not just that. It’s all kinds of stuff. It all gets to me. You can’t talk about that. You are called weak and pathetic. Your personhood is diminished to shit, a bag of ass. All the brainwashed Marines have some little redundant mindless insult to come at you with to dismiss you and shut you up. Sometimes I can’t tell what was real. Other things haunt me and I just can’t seem to grasp it all. Some people tell me I have PTSD. I don’t know what to think. I never saw combat. And does it matter if it’s real? It’s not like I’m stuck in a whiskey locker my entire life, but sometimes it is. Like in a car, or confined to a room, maybe. I don’t know what to think of any of it. I only know that I hate the fucking Marine Corps.
By Shawn Blevins
- Wealthy bankers get wealthier as home foreclosures go up due more people mortgaging their
homes for gas money.
- Gen X becomes the dominant generation as Obamacare death panels kill more than half of
- Lindsay Lohan gets clean and the Obamacare deficit comes out of the red.
- Mel Gibson becomes the front running presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2012.
- Mel Gibson becomes the front running presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 2012.
- President Obama announces that Tiger Woods will be his new personal assistant due to his
ability to multitask.
- In a protest against the United States immigration policy Cheech Marin is arrested for leading a
mass migration of Mexicans in a charge across the California border.
- Marijuana reform laws sweep across the United States. Frito Lay becomes the nation’s leading
- It is revealed that John McCain is zombie and has actually been dead for about ten years.
- Gonzo Times is shut down due to provoking critical thinking in the realm of politics.
I go to BP in the mornings because the one by my house has great coffee. I get a black coffee, a pack of Camel Menthols and some gas before I drive to the suburbs for work. This morning as I walked in I nodded to a person to the back of the line as I went passed on my way to get my coffee. By the time I had the lid on and was headed back to the front to check out the person was going to the door. The cashier behind the glass called out to the person, she was an aggressive. I mention this because I feel it is pertinent to the situation. If you are not aware, the aggressive culture is one that is most commonly found with black or latina inner city lesbians. There is a masculine trans gender element to the culture. The clerk was calling her out accusing her of stealing a pack of Halls cough drops. She moved for the door.
“I didn’t steal nothin’ man.” She said. That’s when I got locked in the damn BP. The clerk hit the button under the counter to lock us in the front room while he drilled her. She continued to deny the clerk’s accusation. I saw something in her front pocket and assumed the clerk was correct. As she went through all the other pockets pulling out nothing. He continued to tell her to ‘put it back’ she insisted she had nothing. Finally the object I was fixated on in her front jacket pocket was pulled out. It wasn’t something she stole at all, it was her half drank bottle of whiskey. This was when I started to feel really awkward.
Here was this guy convinced this person was a thief, and I convinced she was not. I stood there not knowing what to think of the situation as she was further humiliated, turning out more pockets. She had not stolen anything. She was still treated rudely as she was told to leave the store. I paid for my coffee and cigarettes and left.
I could not help but think if she were a straight white girl with blond hair and blue eyes that she would not have been treated this way. This really started to hit me after I was on the road and now facing the second challenge of the day that would delay my drive in to work, traffic. It was a parking lot. I sat and waited on 69 south forever it seemed. I watched the traffic going north as they drove by. Often it is the opposing traffic that has the difficulties. Most of them are living in the suburbs driving to the city to work. I’m the opposite. I live in the city and drive to their posh suburbs to work. I loathe it. I just can’t stand being in the suburbs and I can’t stand the culture.
I watched as the endless flow of cars passed by heading to the city. Most of them were much nicer than mine. I drive a lowered ’94 Acura Integra with an after-market wing. It sounds nice, but this poor thing is the queen of ghetto hoopties. My wife got it sometime in the 90′s and it really has ran well, it just has a few issues, like the floor rotting out, the trunk won’t close, it’s head to toe rust, oh I could go on for a while. I looked at the nicer cars daydreaming about winning the lottery as I do every morning on my ride to work. I pass by this huge Powerball sign on the side of the highway and it always gets me thinking of what I would do with the cash. Some days I’m using my millions to make Gonzo Times a successful magazine. Some days I am using my millions to build a commune on Independence Blvd to take care of all the people living on the streets out here in NorthEast Kansas City.
I watch the cars passing wishing I wasn’t driving a car that didn’t lock and didn’t have Air Conditioning. My mind started to drift to a thought I often have. All the cars reminded me of ants marching along so many. I tried to guess how many people drive up and down that highway in a given day. I have many things that pop into my mind watching these cars everyday, some of them you read here on Gonzo Times. Others just disappear forever. This day my watching suburbanites took me back to that poor girl that was locked in the BP with me. “If she were not a black lesbian aggressive would she have been treated differently?” I thought to myself. I started to think of just how society as a whole does not accept people different than them, let alone someone that deviates from certain gender norms.
I was not like other boys growing up. I have Tourettes Syndrome for starters. That always made me obviously different. I acted in ways that were not the accepted norm, not by choice but because I could not control what my body was doing. As I sit here now, blinking my eyes, jerking my head and twitching my nose I wonder what a stranger would think of me if they were watching. I am often unaware of my tics. Most of them are mild at this point in my life most of the time. I remember being yelled at and told to stop doing something I was unaware I was doing. I remember people insisting that I act like the other kids. I could not. This made me think how would it have been if it were my gender that was different instead of my tics. What if I were to look at myself when I used the restroom and saw that my penis was missing every time I had to go. What if they were telling me to sleep with a man when I only had sexual feelings for a woman? What if I had gone to church every Sunday growing up to hear that my tics were of the devil and I was going to burn in hell for them? What if it was my love for my wife that was going to send me to hell?
It was not easy growing up with my interests. All the other boys liked football and basketball. I tried to. I bought baseball cards, mostly for the gum. I attempted to sit and watch sports games. I could never find anything desirable about it. I did not enjoy it and I could not bring myself to like it. Being a male in the United States means entails living with a great deal of pressure and expectation for you to do well in sports and enjoy it. Observing the rigidity of this gender stereotype and the stigma given when one does not conform to it I have a hard time comprehending how much stress and pain someone who deviates from the rules assigned to the male/female sex dichotomy must feel.
What would it be like if it wasn’t the football I couldn’t find a love for, but the opposite gender? I can see why so many men have married women only to come out years later, or even keep their genuine sexual orientation bottled up inside. We have pressure everywhere in society to conform to the social norms. Just what does someone do if the social norms and their very nature clash? I clash in some ways and I have turned to challenge and reject many of the social norms. How would it impact me if it were my sexual orientation? I am sure many people react in many different ways.
What about the woman in the BP? She looked as if she did not have much. I started to wonder just how it impacted her. How did her gender impact things like employment? It sure seemed like it impacted her ability to walk in the corner store without issue. I am cynical when it comes to suburbanites. I have many prejudices towards them often. I watch as they drive their expensive cars from their expensive homes living in their straight marriages with their 2.5 children and wonder. It seems all too often that many of them are hidden away from the things they do not want to see. The black lesbian locked in the BP isn’t even something it seems they would care about. The people walking up and down the avenue are an annoyance and something to avoid, not human beings.
I was raised in church. I got the message that God has two things on the top of his shit list. Those are abortion and gay rights. I later would read the Bible for myself and find that these two topics of such focus in the fundamentalist movement really were not present in scripture. Any reference was vague at best. Over time it dawned on me that social norms were worshiped by these church people. God was somehow really in love with their social norms and to deviate was to damn you to hell. These people had clung to a bible and a God to justify their dominance over others and forcing what they were comfortable with on others.What is it like to go to church and hear how God is love but God hates you?
I look at the majority of media. There is now some representation of people other than white straight men, but much of that is a joke. I mean it is literally a joke. It seems that more often than not the gay character is put there for a laugh. How many movies portray a trans woman in a positive light? How many look at trans women as a way for a quick laugh? I think you will find more of the latter. What would it feel like to watch movies and see the only people you see like yourself are just there for a cheap giggle?
Looking back at being locked in that BP I wish I had done something. Isn’t it always that way? You can look back to a situation and see how it can be handled better. I wish I would have stood up for her. I wish I would have helped her. I am ashamed that I stood there gawking like a fool as someone demanded she emptied her pockets. Why wasn’t I the one who stood on her side?
The pitfalls of at- will employment and how to protect yourself:
I have worked since I was ten years old. I mowed grass, raked leaves, and shoveled snow. I did chores for my mother. I had a paper route. I helped older people I knew move. I worked for “rent a kid”. No it wasn’t a child sex slave operation. It was an agency run by a nonprofit organization to assist the elderly with tasks they were no longer able to do.
I liked working. I made money, felt a sense of accomplishment, and generally the people I worked for were grateful. We all have to work. We all have to make money to have three hots and a cot, but the real nature of the world of work is so cut throat that one can enter the workforce and succeed without becoming a sycophant or crook. Many people end up doing both, which is a sad reality of the world.
A full list of over 200 mirror sites is at the bottom so scroll there to see them all
UPDATE: 12/06/10 You can download a copy of the Insurance File Here. This is a torrent of everything to be released encrypted in case anything happens to Julian Assage the key to open it will be released.
UPDATE: 12/05/10 – Yesterday 22.214.171.124 was having issues and the best way to access the information was on the mirrors. It seems things are okay today. The site was undergoing ‘scheduled maintenance’.
UDATE: 12/04/2010 – Many of the domains pointing to WikiLeaks have gone down at this point. It looks like the individual country codes have held on the longest and a direct IP is still the best way to access the site. When you get there please download the site archive abailable there. You can also download it directly here so we can keep it in as many hands as possible. Click Here to Download the Torrent of a full site archive. Also, since we have received so much traffic on this site over the last 24 hours via google searches I just wanted to invite all you new visitors to check out our latest podcast on Wikileaks which you can find here.
Our first Podcast is finally out! Here it is, please check it out and leave some feedback. I am excited to hear what you all think.
Today we discuss Michael Chertoff, the TSA and the coercive power of the state. Also we reference the article posted about the TSA and Trauma. We also discuss We Won’t Fly and the incident of Celeste.
Tags: Anarchist Podcast, Barack Obama, Gonzo Times Radio, John Pistole, Libertarian Podcast, Michael Chertoff, Police State, Rapiscan Systems, Transportation Security Administration, TSA, United States, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Secretary of Homeland Security
It is the near future and we are entering world war III. After raping the middle east and slaughtering countless human beings for cheap oil to support the pocket books of oil tycoons, bankers, Wall Street and the politicians, they found that there just wasn’t enough to support their 50 mph lifestyle and suburban sprawl. Instead of going to a more natural 3 mph architecture and a sustainable lifestyle they decided it was time to hunt down the dictators of the world. Any country producing oil and not selling it to them at slave labor wages had to be a dictator.
They knew why they were waging their war so they preached murder in the name of liberty. Only, this time nobody bought it. The people were not ignorant and easily persuaded by the rhetoric of a false sense of patriotism to support the wealth of the ruling class. The poor did not answer the call. They did not enlist. The poor stayed home.
It was time for the bankers and politicians to fight the wars they sold the public on in the centuries before. Those in power would have to get their hands dirty with the blood of innocents directly. They could no longer hide behind the poor to kill for them.
Congress got the call. Every cabinet and every banker, oil tycoon and board member. Every wealthy fat cat that had promoted war for the liberty to continue stealing the wealth of nations got the call. They did not have to waste countless billions on the bullshit propaganda because they knew what they were fighting for. They were shipped off to Parris Island. They lined up on the yellow foot prints. They were humiliated and led into training to learn just how they had to murder to keep their filthy wealth and blood money.
The poor stayed home and laughed at them on their T.V. screens. They did not have to lie to the public because they knew just what they stood to loose. They were ready to destroy lives in Venezuela, Russia, and the Sudan. They knew that the other country that was using their oil was ran by dictators who did what they did. But, these countries were dictators because it was someone else doing what only they could do because they did it for patriotism and under the false name of liberty.
The senators got to carry the weapons and murder. The senators got to die for the cause they feel so much needed someone to die for. They spoke of how war was horrible and how they did not support it then they sent our boys off to their death for profit before. They spoke of how hard of a decision it was for them to make. They spoke of how we needed to keep our country free from Mexicans and Muslims. Now was their chance to show us just how much we needed the liberty they brought through murder.
They got their chance to ‘die for their country’. After a while a few realized just how bad of an idea it was for them to murder to maintain their wealth. But they knew pulling out would only admit defeat so they continued to walk into the line of fire. They continued to blow themselves up and others also. They couldn’t admit defeat and they could not let it look like they were wrong.
They sat in the trenches writing letters home to their lawyers and board members. They picked up the human remains. They got to take those lives directly. They got to learn just what kind of an impact their actions truly had on the world.
Every time they watched one of their fellow elite murdered they realized that just left more wealth for them. They began to cannibalize each other so they could return home with the oil they killed for and the extra suburban homes and BMW they knew they would get from the estate sale of their fallen comrades.
They took the paychecks of the PFC’s they would send to be slaughtered, and the inner city youth they would get their bloated fat checks. After paying pennies to the poor to die and murder they would now receive pennies to die and murder. Since they felt that sitting home and waging wars was where the money was they no longer brought in the billions.
In an odd turn of events back home without their oppression, tyranny and waste the people cut them off of the checkbooks. They cut them off of any decision they felt they should make. The people were too busy improving their way of life, economy and the issues that mattered to them. When their wars were done the ruling class started to come home but nobody wanted them there. They were not aloud to come back to the profit of their murder. They were asked to go live in Darfur so they could experience the genocide and oppression they were so happy to oversee.
The people decided that they would let the bankers, oil tycoons and politicians live in the world they attempted to create for the rest of us. If that was what they wanted so bad they could have it. Sure, occasionally we would hear about the genocide and mass murder of bankers, oil tycoons and politicians in some third world country, but they showed us that murder was regrettable but just not something to oppose, so we let them live that reality out for themselves.
We should croak the Tea Party because it has done nothing but bring out the worst in people, and has done more in the way of dividing this country than of fixing it.
“I do miss George Bush. Compared to these
teabaggers and the people who are pandering
to them, he looks like a professor.”
The Tea Party movement is a testament to exactly what is wrong with politics, and our country, today. I’m not saying this because I believe that every single member of the movement is a racist, and I’m not saying it because I believe that protesting the “business-as-usual” approach to government is a bad thing. Not at all. I actually think that protesting the status-quo is probably the most healthy action that citizens of a democracy can take. After all, if the citizens of a democracy lose their right, or will, to protest…well, then the notion that we are living in a democracy at all is a fallacy.
The problem with the Tea Party is this: It’s not anything new. It’s not some new way of thinking. And, it’s not at all a separate entity. If the Tea Party movement were actually giving the public at large something new to think about that would be one thing. But, the fact is that the Tea Party movement is just an off-shoot of the Republican party & is spouting nothing but conservative rhetoric. So, to the supporters of the “movement” reading this, where the hell is the protest in this movement?
The Tea Party (Republican Party 2.0) is mobilized against a president whose term has seen the least amount of policy change, in terms of party turnover, in the history of the Democratic Party. So, taking that into account, who is your beef with exactly?
So, the Republicans are under siege from a movement that is nothing more than an extension of their own party, the Democrats are masquerading as Republicans, and the Tea Party is forging ahead as though they’re just minutes away from changing the world… You see the problem? This country is in arguably the worst shape it has ever been in. The Republican & Democratic Parties should be focused on getting this country back on track, but instead they are both too focused on the doings of a travelling road show to get anything of significance done.
People have e-mailed me to “inform” me that the movement is providing an alternative to “everyday politics in this country”. That sounds great, but I’m not buying it. Here are my final thoughts on the movement:
The Tea Party was born of the fear that the principles & values of the country at its core were in jeopardy?
I agree with this notion, but the loss of principles & values, especially by those who’ve run this country, happened a long time ago.
Those who were involved with the movement, in its earliest form, were genuinely concerned with the way the government was being run?
I can believe this as well. Aren’t we all more than a little concerned with how the government is/has been run? I’m sure every citizen, especially post-Vietnam/Nixon, would respond with a resounding ‘Yes’ to that question.
The Tea Party is racist?
I truly do my best to not judge an entire group upon the actions of a few within it… But, in all honesty, the Tea Party has been hijacked by individuals & groups who see the demonstrations as a way to spout racially charged epithets at a black president. Plain and simple. So, while not every single person who is involved with the movement is a racist, the platform that the Tea Party encourages has been compromised by hateful, racist people.
The Tea Party is a legitimate third party?
No. Hell no. Pay attention to their stances, their ideals, and the people running as Tea Party candidates, and you’ll see why I’ve dubbed them, “Republican Party 2.0″.
Of all the issues that inevitably come up whenever the Tea Party is brought up, race is the biggest one by far. Without a doubt, I’ll be receiving e-mails from those of you who believe that the movement is a full-blown racist mobilization, and from those of you who believe that the racism slam is an attempt to derail the movement by means of “race-baiting”. I’ve already given my view on the role that racism plays within the movement… Watch these two videos & draw your own conclusions:
- The Altered Statesman
Originally posted at The Altered States of Munley
I hear all sides of the political spectrum argue for their ‘rights’. From their bill of rights to the freedom brought by a gun, liberty, freedom and rights are constantly thrown around and mean something completely different to almost everyone who utters the words. I reject the concept of liberty, freedom and rights. None will ever truly be obtained. They are abstract concepts created to describe and defend ones political stance. Rights are used as statist apolagetics to obtain what one desires. If I write on my bill of rights that I have a ‘Right’ to sex does that truly justify me taking that sex from an individual? This can only be given freely or it is nothing more than rape.
Rape is defined by Merriam Webster as ‘to seize or take away by force’. By this definition the majority of government action is nothing more than rape. All attempts for one to obtain these liberties, freedom or rights through taxation or initiation of force which is the state is nothing short of rape.
The only civil way for society to be structured is by acknowledgment of the non-aggression axiom. As the structure of states and the force a state uses against the individual evolves we see a forward progression. Some is positive, some is stagnant. I will not claim every effort of the state has been in vain or for evil. There are people who truly work for a positive through a state. We see this in more recent government actions like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. An injustice in society was acknowledged in society and actions were taken to amend this. The problem is not the Lilly Ledbetter Act and what the state attempted to do within this act, but the problem lies within the existence of the state.
If the state is a corrupt institution whose driving power is rape and initiation of force any action the state takes will be either tainted by this unethical nature or null and void when we have eliminated the state.
You can point out the ‘good politicians’ all day long. You can even point out the so-called ‘good cops’. In reality there is no good cop and there is no good politician. This is not a claim that all are evil and driven to harm. This is the claim that by the nature of the system those positions are naturally violating to others and thus essentially criminal for by their very nature they break the non-aggression axiom. By simply taking the positions to invade and rape others no matter how nice of an individual they may be or how well meaning ones intent is, they have still taken a position that is to invade and rape.
Look at the Nazi executioner. He was just following orders with good intent. No matter how nice the guy was or how well intended he was he was still the freaking Nazi executioner. The job of police is to chain and cage human beings for not doing what the politician said they should do. You didn’t pay the car insurance company or the state? Well if you didn’t pay us you should be chained and caged. If you defend yourself you loose your rights and we shoot you. This is the nature of the state.
Liberty, Freedom and Rights mean little. Since every time they are spoken these words have a completely different definition to almost everyone. We are better served by defining how society can function in a civil manner. The basis of this being the non-aggression axiom we must find new ways to approach the so-called rights we perceive.
Since I started this site a few years ago my following has grown. I get more regular readers than I could have ever expected. Many correspond with me and even challenge what I write. I started this site when I was still a minarchist libertarian. I held to many concepts of ‘local government’ which I have since rejected. I have actively been seeking alternatives to the state and reading and learning of the illegitimacy of the state. Much of which I have written here. If you have been following me over this time you have seen much of this evolution and have been privy to my journey and change in philosophy. I do not believe I will ever be done with this process of learning and evolving.
My main goal was really to challenge everything I believe and think. Sadly I think this has made me more obstinate in some conclusions I have reached.
The basic concepts of rights in the more traditional constitutional manner would be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is simple enough. We have a right to live. That’s simple, and I think few will disagree with that. When you reach liberty and the pursuit of happiness we see a vague definition of rights. What is liberty? Liberty from what? You can have liberty from work then you may see that you loose your happiness when you can’t pay bills or keep your home. You can be liberated from more confining thought processes.
To acknowledge moral rights you must have a similar moral standard as others. Most do not cling to the same set of morality. Humanist or feminist world views may differ from an Islamic or Christian world view leading to a completely different set of ethics and moral standards. Specific injustices or ills in society must not be thrown out because of what I am saying. I will say that they need to be approached for what they are and not to be claimed as a ‘right’. Under Shariah you see six basic rights:
1. The right to the protection of life.
2. The right to the protection of family.
3. The right to the protection of education.
4. The right to the protection of religion.
5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
6. The right to the protection of human dignity.
Who can really go against this concept of rights defined by Shariah? None of those concepts seem like anything I would oppose working for or fighting for. The goals are wonderful. BUT. The only same concept I see here with our constitutional rights is ‘life’. I don’t see Shariah extolling liberty or the pursuit of happiness. One could argue that those elements of Shariah are both liberty or the pursuit of happiness, but at the same time they could also argue they are not at all. Some would cling to freedom of speech or freedom of owning a gun much more closely than any of the above. Some would even reject the right to religion as we see in the conservative anti-Muslim movement in the United States today. Some would say that our rights are relative to conditions of birth. In the early 1800′s if you were born the wrong color you had no ‘rights’ as a slave. Now if you are born in Mexico many argue that you are not entitled to the same ‘rights’ as others.
Immanuel Kant spoke of negative and positive rights. He spoke of our duty not to impose on others. We see a similar concept in the libertarian non-aggression axiom. If any right exists I would argue it is this right. I may not agree that it is even a right. This idea is simply the absent of a right. No one holds the right to aggress on another. No one holds the right to rape another. No one holds the right to kill another. No one holds the right to steal from another. No one holds the right to assault another. I will hold this concept of negative rights above the concept of ‘natural rights’ or any other rights one claims they have. If rights are viewed as negative rights we see there are more we can come to agree upon.
Do you have the liberty to kill and put people in cages? Many would automatically say no, but their actions would say otherwise. Some would claim this is admissible if you own a badge and a gun.
I am not sure that I am at this time willing to agree that anyone has any rights, but we can see a plethora of negative rights that society can be structured upon. The interesting thing is that if we truly implemented the lack of these rights we would see the elimination of the state for they are rights people employed by the state claim for themselves. Every positive right does entail a negative right. The positive right may be the right to sex, but that would lead to the negative which is the right to be invaded upon. Perhaps we should start to look more critically at the negative right.
Could the right to property for one be a negative right to labor for another? Let us take a potter for example. He takes the clay from the ground. Now by his labor the clay is his property. Let us say that the potter gives the clay to another potter who turns it into a bowl. Now that both have put labor into the bowl who has the right to the profit or ownership? Can the potter that removed the clay still claim ownership after another had put labor into the clay?
When rights conflict does either party really have any rights?
I am finding it harder to justify any right as an absolute, but I can see absolutes in negative rights. We do not have certain rights. So where does this lead us?
So what is liberty? Is liberty having the rights to do as we wish? Liberty, Freedom and Rights are all difficult to define because of the vast difference in perception. Each could have a thousand definitions some could even conflict. This makes it near impossible to make any stance of substance on something like liberty, freedom or rights.
Libertarians have naturally leaned towards the liberty and freedom with a strong stance on natural rights or property rights. I am not utterly rejecting the concepts, but I am challenging them. I am saying that they are not enough. I am even rejecting much of it as a basis of my beliefs, instead I should see them as a result of what I believe.
So, to take the negative rights stance I will say that no one has the right to force others to do as they will. I will not say that Pastor Terry Jones the Qumran burning hillbilly preacher had the right to burn bibles. I will not say he did not have the right either. That all depends on what perspective of rights you take. I will look at the negative and say that no one has the right to use force or aggression to stop one from burning books. Just as no one has the right to stop Islamic protests from burning bibles or flags. Do I condone burning books? No. It seems a bit dangerous and Nazi like for me. But it really comes down to if we should be elevating the issue with violence. Should we send men with guns in to stop them? It seems that an outcry of objections can stop one from doing such a thing.
Instead of fighting the battle of what rights one has maybe we should focus on the rights one does not have. We do not have the right to attack, chain, cage or steal from others. No one holds those rights. By ending those actions no one has a right to you find anarchy. You find the need to structure society in new civil manners.
We all know those cartoons and drawings from Nazi Germany, and how they depicted the Jewish people, often offensive and shocking. What about how the U.S. depicted the Japanese, most specifically in one superman cartoon where our hero of the red white and blue wailed on the ‘evil japs’. We see how these images shaped nations and aided in the victimization of those people groups. In the U.S. we had little problem rounding up ‘the evil japs’ and placing them in concentration camps or as we would like to say in an effort to distance ourselves from Nazi Germany ‘internment camps’. We saw the mass slaughter and holocaust prejudice fuelled by this media aided in Nazi Germany.
How does Anti-Semitism compare to Islamophobia?
Given the growing distrust of Muslims as the “other” and the conclusion that anti-Muslim hostility is itself found normal, the publication of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in recent weeks can no longer be dismissed as mere experiments in libertarian freedom of speech and censorship.
The cartoons were not borne in a vacuum.
Earlier political cartoons of Jews and Christians had been rejected on the grounds they would be deemed offensive. No such considerations were appropriated to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
Furthermore, in April 2005, Danish Queen Margrethe told a biographer, “We are being challenged by Islam these years. Globally as well as locally … We must take this challenge seriously. We have simply left it flapping around for far too long, because we are tolerant and rather lazy.”
The cartoons depicted the “challenge,” if not danger, of a terrorist Muhammad. Could such a depiction have been totally unaffected by social conditions (encouraged by Queen Margrethe) existing in Danish society?
The recent Jyllands-Posten cartoon depicting a bearded Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is suspiciously similar to the Der Satan cartoon.
Both Muhammad, a Muslim, and the Der Stürmer Jew are bearded. Both wear religious head gear, and both are depicted as icons of evil in contemporary society.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, Muslim communities in non-Islamic countries have come to fear the very pogroms which targeted the Jews in 1930s Europe.
For example, as shown above, Pogromnacht came about when a German diplomat was killed by a Jew. The stage had been set with repeated anti-Jewish commentary in German media.
In the days following the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who directed a film many Muslims found offensive, by an Arab immigrant in 2004, attacks against Muslims soared in the Netherlands. Just as in Nazi Germany, the stage here had also been set by repeated anti-Islamic commentary in the media.
Just as synagogues were burned during Pogromnacht, mosques and Islamic schools in Rotterdam, Breda, Huizen, Utrecht, and Eindhoven were attacked, vandalized, and in some cases set ablaze.
I look at how these prejudices shaped nations and helped to paint people with a broad stroke as evil or less than desirable. They were seen as incompatible with the dominant culture and a threat to the dominant culture, or the Aryan race. The rhetoric of how the Jew was the ‘inciter of war’ is much how the current perspective is of Islam being the religion of war against our culture. The trend of anti-Muslim media and speech from the characters and cartoons being drawn, to the general discussion on Islam in the U.S. has gone in a similar direction. They tend to paint Islam as evil and a threat against the current culture.
Joseph Goebbels used radio to reach an audience for Hitler and the Nazi party much like the current anti-Muslim movement does now with modern talk radio and Fox news. Many right wing groups have also taken another move out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook with the movement of anti-Islam book burning by churches in Florida. We are entering into dangerous territory.
Just as the preservation of the Aryan race was a focus, today self proclaimed culturalists such as John Kenneth are emerging. Much of the same sentiments are being preached by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs. The ideas are ones that extol the virtues and accomplishments of their own culture while demonizing others. These people do not turn the same critical eye on their culture that they do with others. They also do not acknowledge positives of other cultures. This outlook creates a dangerous environment where the mention of any other people group with opposing views or cultures is automatically shut down with vague generalizations and attacks. It leads to hypocritical claims that often condemn the other for similar iniquities within their own group. When one speaks out against these egocentric views the defense is often that you are ‘playing the race card’. This is done in reaction to anyone mentioning issues of culture or race as if to notice such differences is offensive to the egocentrism they cling to.
The disdain of others is not limited to the Muslim but it also extends to the Migrant. We see immigrant detention centers all over the country that are not a far cry from the concentration camps. The laws of the United States are the side of culturalism.
By stating that they are not ‘racist’ the most dangerous groups have found refuge in painting these people groups in broad strokes as evil by stating that certain actions and beliefs are not legal or accepted they have found a way to victimize people. If the prejudice is outside of the ‘racism’ category they feel it is justified. Did the Jim Crow laws not choose to target other aspects of a race to oppress a race? How is this any different? The bigot will begin by painting all people with broad strokes as ‘evil’ ‘unlawful’ or ‘dangerous’. This stands as their defense. It is this prejudice that they build the utilitarian stance they take against people. These groups feel if they renounce ‘racism’ that their prejudices and bigotry is justified as seen in much of their rhetoric and writing.
By ignoring the existence of Islamophobia (as much a socio-political phenomenon as anti-Semitism) fear and ignorance of Islam continues to grow.
In its 2004 annual report The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found “certain groups of persons, notably Arabs, Jews, Muslims, certain asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants, and certain visible minorities have become particularly vulnerable to racism and racial discrimination across many fields of public life.”
ECRI also said that Islamophobia was on the rise in Europe:
Islamophobia continues to manifest itself in different guises. Muslim communities are the target of negative attitudes, and sometimes, violence and harassment. They suffer multiple forms of discrimination, including sometimes from certain public institutions. ECRI is worried about the current climate of hostility against persons who are or are believed to be Muslim.
There is, indeed, a cultural divide as ECRI points out: “One of the new faces of racism today is “cultural” racism. According to this notion of racism, cultures are pre-defined entities, largely seen as homogenous, unchangeable and, more importantly, incompatible with each other.”
We are not headed in the same direction as Nazi Germany, we are there and have been there. The bigot screams they are not a bigot and then chooses to blame people groups they oppose for either the thought crimes of their religion or the crimes of their poverty.
Could we be facing another holocaust?
If the conditions which led to the Holocaust exist now as they did then, is it far-fetched to consider that Muslims in Europe could face a similar outcome?
While a Holocaust against Muslims may seem far-fetched, the rhetoric against the Islamic world has increased significantly in recent months. There is no means of predicting how violent a backlash against Muslims will be if another Von Gogh is killed, or another crime on the scale of 9/11 is committed.
The phrase du jour is that Muslims simply cannot accept Western ideals. By such presumed predisposition, Muslims are rendered outcasts, or in Adolf Hitler’s terms, untermenschen.
So popular was anti-Semitism that Hitler would expound himself as a proud anti-Semite. “Gradually I began to hate them. For me this was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I have ever gone through. I have ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and have become an anti-Semite” (Adoph Hitler’s Mein Kampf).
Jews around the world hold remembrance ceremonies of the Holocaust and say “never again.”
As violent demonstrations against the cartoons continue to rage in a few Muslim countries, it becomes incumbent upon Muslim and non-Muslim leaders to carefully face the great cultural gap that divides them.
First and foremost, Islamophobia needs to be recognized as an existing and imminent racial threat to cultural cohesion. By the same token, Muslims need to carefully ponder how actions within their communities are perceived by those who may not be knowledgeable of their cultures and norms.
Violence must be rejected outright, whether that includes the burning of a mosque in Holland or an embassy in Libya.
If wiser minds do not prevail, Europe may soon find itself repeating the horrors of the past.
Ideally, invasions should be prevented rather than repelled, just as illnesses should be prevented rather than cured.
The strongest conceivable case for anarchism is that a stateless society would by its very nature prevent invasion, rather than merely possess the ability to violently repel it.
So first, before we figure out how to repel an invasion, let us look at what an invasion is actually designed to achieve.
Let us imagine a land where there are two farms, owned by Bob and Jim respectively. Bob is a rapacious and nasty fellow, who wishes to expand his farm and make more money.
To the east of Bob is Jim’s farm, which is tidy, efficient, and productive, with a wide variety of cows and chickens and neatly-planted fields.
To the west of Bob is an untamed wilderness full of bears and wolves and coyotes and mosquitoes and swamps and all other sorts of unpleasant and dangerous things.
From the standpoint of mere practical considerations, how can Bob most efficiently expand his farm and increase his income?
Surely it would be to invest in a few guns, head east, and take over Jim’s farm. For a very small investment, Bob ends up with a functioning and productive farm, ready to provide him with milk, eggs and crops.
On the other hand, Bob could choose to go west, into the untamed wilderness, and try to cull a number of dangerous predators, drain the swamps, hack down and uproot all the embedded trees and bushes. After a year or two of backbreaking labor, he may have carved out a few additional acres for himself – an investment that would scarcely seem worth it.
If Bob wants to expand, and cares little about ethics, he will “invade” Jim’s farm and take it over, because he will be taking command of an already-existing system of exploitation and production.
Thus, we can see that the act of invading a neighboring territory is primarily motivated by the desire to take over an existing productive system. If that productive system is not in place, then the motivation for invasion evaporates. A car thief will never “steal” a rusted old jalopy that is sitting up on bricks in an abandoned lot, but rather will attempt to steal a car that is in good condition.
This analysis of the costs and benefits of invasion is essential to understanding how a stateless society actually works to prevent invasion, rather than merely repel it.
When one country invades another country, the primary goal is to take over the existing system of government, and thus collect the taxes from the existing citizens. In the same way that Bob will only invade Jim’s farm in order to take over his domesticated animals, one government will only invade another country in order to take over the government of that country, and so become the new tax collector. If no tax collection system is in place, then there is no productive resource for the invading country to take over.
Furthermore, to take a silly example, we can easily understand that Bob will only invade Jim’s farm if he knows that Jim’s cows and chickens are not armed and dangerous. To adjust the metaphor a little closer to reality, imagine that Jim has a number of workers on his farm who are all ex-military, well-armed, and will fight to the death to protect that farm. The disincentive for invasion thus becomes considerably stronger.
In the same way, domestic governments generally keep their citizens relatively disarmed, in order to more effectively tax them, just as farmers clip the wings of their geese and chickens in order to more efficiently collect their eggs and meat.
Thus the cost-benefit analysis of invasion only comes out on the plus side if the benefits are clear and easy to attain – an existing tax collection system – and if the costs of invasion are relatively small – a largely disarmed citizenry.
In a very real sense, therefore, a stateless society cannot be invaded, because there is really nothing to invade. There are no government buildings to inhabit, no existing government to displace, no tax collection system in place to take over and profit from – and, furthermore, there is no clear certainty about the degree of armaments that each citizen possesses (don’t worry, we will get into gun control later…).
An invading country can be very certain that, if it breaks through another government’s military defenses, it will then not face any significant resistance from the existing citizenry. A statist society can be considered akin to an egg – if you break through the shell, there is no second line of defense inside. Invading governments are well aware of the existing laws against the proliferation of weapons in the country they are invading – thus they are guaranteed to be facing a virtually disarmed citizenry, as long as they can break through the military defenses.
Let us imagine that France becomes a stateless society, but that Germany and Poland do not. Let us go with the cliché and imagine that Germany has a strong desire to expand militarily. The German leader then looks at a map, and tries to figure out whether he should go east into Poland, or west into France.
If he goes east into Poland, then he will, if he can break through the Polish military defenses, be able to feast upon the existing tax base, and face an almost completely disarmed citizenry. He will be able to use the existing Polish tax collectors and tax collection system to enrich his own government, because the Poles are already controlled and “domesticated,” so to speak.
In other words, he only has one enemy to overcome and destroy, which is the Polish government’s military. If he can overcome that single line of defense, he gains control over billions of dollars of existing tax revenues every single year – and a ready-made army and its equipment.
On the other hand, if he thinks of going west into France, he faces some daunting obstacles indeed.
There are no particular laws about the domestic ownership of weapons in a stateless society, so he has no idea whatsoever which citizens have which weapons, and he certainly cannot count on having a legally-disarmed citizenry to prey on after defeating a single army.
Secondly, let us say that his army rolls across the border into France – what is their objective? If France still had a government, then clearly his goal would be to take Paris, displace the existing government, and take over the existing tax collection system.
However, where is his army supposed to go once it crosses the border? There is no capital in a stateless society, no seat of government, no existing system of tax collection and citizen control, no centralized authority that can be seized and taken over. In the above example of the two farms and the wilderness, this is the equivalent not of Bob taking over Jim’s farm, but rather of Bob heading into the wilderness and facing coyotes, bears, swamps and mosquitoes – there is no single enemy, no existing resources to take over, and nothing in particular to “seize.”
But let us say that the German leadership is completely retarded, and decides to head west into France anyway – and let us also suppose, to make the case as strong as possible, that everyone in France has decided to forego any kind of collective self-defense.
What is the German army going to do in France? Are they going to go door to door, knocking on people’s houses and demanding their silverware? Even if this were possible, and actually achieved, all that would happen is that the silverware would be shipped back to Germany, thus putting German silverware manufacturers out of business. When German manufacturers go out of business, they lay people off, thus destroying tax revenue for the German government.
The German army cannot reasonably ship French houses to Germany – perhaps they will seize French cars and French electronics and ship them to Germany instead.
And what is the German government supposed to do with thousands of French cars and iPods? Are they supposed to sell these objects to their own citizens at vastly reduced prices? I imagine that certain German citizens would be relatively happy with that, but again, all that would happen is that German manufacturers of cars and electronics would be put out of business, thus again sharply reducing the German government’s tax income, resulting in a net loss.
Furthermore, by destroying domestic industries for the sake of a one-time transfer of French goods, the German government would be crippling its own future income, since domestic manufacturing represents a permanent source of tax revenue – this would be a perfect example of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
Well, perhaps what the German government could do is seize French citizens and ship them to Germany as slave labor. What would be the result of that?
Unfortunately, this would not work either, at least not for long, because slave labor cannot be taxed, and slave labor would displace existing German labor, which is taxable. Thus again the German government would be permanently reducing its own income, which it would not do.
Another reason that Germany might invade another country would be to seize control of the wealth of the government – the ability to print money, and the ownership of a large amount of physical assets, such as buildings, cars, gold, manufacturing plants and so on.
However, nothing remains unowned in a stateless society, except that which has no value, or cannot be owned, such as air. There are no “public assets” to seize, and there are no state-owned printing presses which can be used to create currency, and thus transfer capital to Germany. There are no endless vaults of government gold to rob, no single aggregation of military assets to seize.
Furthermore, if we go up to a thief and say to him, “Do you want to rob a house?” what is his first question likely to be?
“Hell I don’t know – what’s in it?”
A thief will always want to know the benefits of robbing a house – he is fully aware of the risks and costs, of course, and must weigh them against the rewards. He will never scale up the outside of some public housing welfare tenement in order to snag an old television and a tape deck. The more knowledgeable he is of the value of a home’s contents, the better he is able to assess the value of breaking into it.
The German leadership, when deciding which country to invade, will know down to almost the last dollar the tax revenues being collected by the Polish government, as well as the value of the public assets they will seize if they invade. The “payoff” can be very easily assessed.
On the other hand, if they look west, into the French stateless society, how will they know what they are actually going to get? There are no published figures for the net wealth of the society as a whole, there is no tax revenue to collect, and there are no public assets which can be easily valued ahead of time. There is no way to judge the cost effectiveness of the invasion.
Invading a statist society is like grabbing the cages of a large number of trapped chickens – you get all of the eggs in perpetuity. Invading a stateless society is like taking a sprint at a flock of seagulls – all they do is scatter, and you get nothing, except perhaps some crap on your forehead.
Thus it is completely impossible that the German leadership would think it a good idea to head west into France rather than east into Poland.
We could leave the case here, and be perfectly satisfied in our responses, but I am always willing to go the extra mile and accept the worst conceivable case.
Let us say that some mad German who was beaten with bagfuls of French textbooks when he was a child ends up running the government, and cares nothing at all about the costs and benefits of invading France, but rather just wishes to take it over in order to – I don’t know, burn all the textbooks or something like that.
We will get into the nature and content of private agencies in the next chapter, but let us just say that there are a number of these private defense agencies that are paid to defend France against just such an invading madman.
Well, if I were setting up some sort of private military defense agency, the first thing I would do is try to figure out how I could most effectively protect my subscribers, for the least possible cost.
The first thing that I would note is that nuclear weapons have been the single most effective deterrent to invasion that has ever been invented. Not one single nuclear power has ever been invaded, or threatened with invasion – and so, in a very real sense, there is no bigger “bang for the buck” in terms of defense than a few well-placed nuclear weapons.
If we assume that a million subscribers are willing to pay for a few nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion, and that those nuclear weapons cost about $30 million to purchase and maintain every year, then we are talking about $30 a year per subscriber – or less than a dime a day.
The defense agencies only make money if an invasion does not occur, just as health insurance companies only make money when you are not sick, but rather well.
Thus the question that I would be most keen to answer if I were running a defense agency is: “How can I best prevent an invasion?”
Let us assume that the French stateless society is a beacon of liberation in a sea of aggressive and statist nations. The French defense agencies would work day and night to ensure that the costs of invasion were as high as possible, and the benefits as low as possible. Were I running one of these agencies, I would think of solutions along the lines of the following…
If I were concerned that my subscribers might be robbed by an invading army, I would offer reduced rates to those willing to allow their electronic money to be secured so that it could not be spent without their own thumb print, or something like that. (Naturally, any system can be hacked, and people can be kidnapped along with their money, but the purpose here is not to prevent all possible workarounds, but rather to simply reduce the material benefits of invading France.)
Similarly, I might offer reduced defense rates to manufacturers that would be willing to allow a small GPS device to be installed in the guts of their machinery, so that if it was removed to another country, it would no longer work. This device could also be included in cars and other items of value, so that they would either have to be used in France, or they could not be used at all.
Given that the control of bridges is a primary military objective, in order to facilitate the movement of troops and vehicles, I would also encourage the installation of particular devices in domestic cars and trucks, which would automatically keep access to bridges open. Thus invading armies would find their access to these bridges much harder, which would again slow down the speed of their invasion.
Furthermore, if invasion seemed imminent, I would arm and train as many citizens as possible. Any invading army would face a quite different challenge in a stateless society. If Germany invades Poland, how many citizens would risk their lives fighting against just another government? Whether a Polish leader taxes you, or a German one, makes relatively little difference – which is why your average citizen does not care much about who runs the local Mafia. Citizens of a stateless society, however, would be resisting an attempt to inflict taxation and a government upon them, and so would be far more willing to fight the kind of endlessly-draining insurgencies that we see so often in the annals of occupation.
These are just a few admittedly off-the-cuff ideas, but it is relatively easy to see how the benefits of invading France could be significantly diminished or even eliminated, while the costs of invading France could be significantly increased or made prohibitive.
The objection could be raised that some lunatic group could simply detonate a nuclear bomb somewhere inside France, for some insane or nefarious motive – but that is not an argument against private defense agencies, and for a statist society, but rather quite the reverse.
The “nuclear madman” argument is not solved by the existence of a government, since no government can protect against this eventuality – however, a free society would be far less likely to be the target of such an attack, since it would have a defensive military policy only, and not an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, and thus would be infinitely less likely to provoke such a mad and genocidal retaliation. Switzerland, for instance, faces no real danger of having airplanes flown into buildings.
It is my belief that over time, the need for these proactive and defensive strategies would diminish, since the only thing that would really ever be needed is a few nuclear weapons as a deterrent – and even the need for these would diminish over time, since either the world itself would become stateless, thus eliminating the danger of war, or the statist societies would continue to attack each other only, for the reasons mentioned above, and the need to continually defend a stateless society would diminish.
Finally, let’s look at some of the illusions that we have about statist “protection” in history, as a demonstration of how we can critically evaluate an example of a statist function.
Statist National “Defense”: A Critical Example
Briefly put, “national defense” is the need for a government to protect citizens from aggression by other governments.
This is an interesting paradox, even beyond the obvious one of using a “government” to protect us from “governments.” If you were able to run a magic survey throughout history, which government do you think people would be most frightened of and enslaved by? Would it be (a), their local State or Lord, or (b), some State or Lord in some other country? What about ancient Rome – would it be the local rulers, who forced young Romans into military service for 20 years or more, or the Carthaginians? What about England in the Middle Ages? Were the peasants more alarmed by the crushing taxation and strangling mobility restrictions imposed by their local Lord, or was the King of France their primary concern? Let us stop in Russia during the 18th century, and ask the serfs: “Are you more frightened of the Tsar’s soldiers, or the German Kaiser?” Let us go to a US citizen of today, and demand to know: “Are you more frightened of foreign invaders taking over Washington, or of the fact that if you don’t pay half your income in taxes, your own government will throw you in jail?”
Of course, we have to look at the Second World War, which has had more propaganda thrown at it than any other single conflict. Didn’t the British government save the country from Germany? That is an interesting question. The British government got into WWI, helped impose the brutal Treaty of Versailles, then contributed to the boom-and-bust cycle of the 1920s, which destroyed the German middle class and aided Hitler’s rise to power. During the 1930s, the British government supported the growing aggression of Hitler through subsidies, loans and mealy-mouthed appeasement. Then, when everything had failed, it threw the bodies of thousands of young men at the German air force in the Battle of Britain. Finally, it caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more British citizens by defending Africa and invading France, rather than let Nazism collapse on its own – as it was bound to do, just as every tyranny has done throughout history. Can it really be said, then, that the British government protected its citizens throughout the first half of the 20th century? Millions killed, families shattered, the economy destroyed, half of Europe lost to Stalin, and China to Mao… Can we consider that a great success? I think not. Only States win wars – never citizens.
The fact of the matter is that we do not face threats to our lives and property from foreign governments, but rather from our own. The State will tell us that it must exist, at the very least, to protect us from foreign governments, but that is morally equivalent to the local Mafia don telling us that we have to pay him 50% of our income so that he can protect us from the Mafia in Paraguay. Are we given the choice to buy a gun and defend ourselves? Of course not. Who endangers us more – the local Mafia guy, or some guy in Paraguay we have never met that our local Mafia guy says just might want a piece of us? I know which chance I would take.
There is a tried-and-true method for resisting foreign occupation which does not require any government – which we can see being played out in our daily news. During the recent invasion, the US completely destroyed the Iraqi government, and now has total control over the people and infrastructure. And what is happening? They are being attacked and harried until they will just have to get out of the country – just as they had to do in Korea and Vietnam, and just as the USSR had to do in Afghanistan. The Iraqi insurgents do not have a government at all – any more than the Afghani fighters did in the 1980s.
Let’s look at the Iraqi conflict in a slightly different light. America was attacked on 9/11 because the American government had troops in Saudi Arabia, and because it caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through the Iraqi bombing campaign of the 1990s. Given that the US government provoked the attacks, how well were the innocent victims of 9/11 protected by their government? Even if we do not count the physical casualties of the war, given the massive national debt being run up to pay for the Iraq war, how well is the property of American citizens being protected? How much power would Bush have to wage war if he did not have the power to steal almost half the wealth of the entire country? The government does not need taxes in order to wage war; it wages war because it already has the power of taxation – and it uses the war to raise taxes, either on the current citizens through increases and inflation, or on future citizens through deficits.
This simple fact helps explain why there were almost no wars in Western Europe from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 to the start of World War One in 1914. This was largely because governments could not afford wars – but then they all got their very own Central Banks and were able to pave the bloody path to the Great War with printed money and deficit financing. World War One resulted from an increase in State power – and in turn swelled State power, and set the stage for the next war. Thus, the idea that we need to give governments the power to tax us in order to protect us is ludicrous – because it is taxation that gives governments the power to wage war.
For pacifist countries, this “war” may be a war on poverty, or illiteracy, or drugs, or for universal health care, or whatever. It does not matter. The moment a government takes the power – and moral “right” – to forcibly take money from citizens, the stage is set for the ever-growing power of the State.
The question then arises – how does a citizen keep his property and person safe? The first answer that I would give is another question, which is:
Which sector does more to protect you and your property – the public or the private?
Let’s look at the security mechanisms the private sector has introduced in just the past few decades:
- ATMs/credit cards (less need to carry cash);
- Cell phones (can always call for help);
- Call display (virtually eliminates harassing phone calls);
- Sophisticated home security systems;
- ID tracking tags;
- Credit card numeric security;
- Pepper spray;
- Security cameras;
- Anti-shoplifting devices;
- Secure online transactions;
- And much more…
What has the public sector done? Well, they shoot harmless drug users and seize their property. They will shoot you too, if you don’t pay the massive tax increases they demand. The police are virtually useless in property crimes – and many violent criminals are turned loose because the courts are too slow, or are put in “house arrest” because the prisons are too full of non-violent offenders.
So, who has most helped you secure your person and property over the past few decades? Your government, or your friendly local entrepreneurs? Those who have stepped in to protect you, or those who have doubled your taxes while letting criminals walk free? Have capitalist companies enraged foreigners to the point of terrorism? Of course not – the 9/11 terrorists attacked the World Trade Center (to protest the financing of the US government), the Pentagon, and the White House. They didn’t go for a Ford motor plant or a Apple store – and why would they? No one kills for iPhones. They kill to protest military power, which rests on public financing.
In summation, then, it makes about as much sense to rely on governments for security as it does to rely on the Mafia for “protection.” The Mafia is really just protecting you from itself, as are all governments. Any man who comes up to you and says: “I need to threaten your person and steal your property in order to protect your person and property,” is obviously either deranged, or not particularly interested, to say the least, in protecting your person and property. As long as we keep falling for the same old lies, we will forever be robbed blind for the sake of our supposed property rights, and sent to wage war against internal or external “enemies” so that those in power can further pick the pockets of those we leave behind.
Northeast Kansas City is pretty much just Democrats. Thank heavens there are few Republicans out there. I have lived in republican territory. I lived in the same area outside of Cincinnati Ohio that John Boehner represents. Oddly enough it was also the only place in the U.S. that I actually saw the KKK gather in a public park, and the only place where the KKK celebrates the holidays downtown with a burning cross.
If you have been following the site you know I have beef with some of the guys running in Kansas City. I was certain Will Royster was going to win the for the 40th House District. Everywhere I turned there were signs with Roysters’ name on them. The guys’ campaign seemed way more professional and seemed to spend way more money. I was certain he had bought himself power. I was bound and determined to at least try and block the guy.
I do not dislike Will Royster. He is a nice guy. He is friendly, and has a nice family, kind of that all-around “American Dream” life. My opposition to his candidacy was not as much a pro J.J. Rizzo thing as it was an anti SOAP/SODA thing and a disappointment in his stance and involvement. Will Royster, if you were a liberal democrat in the truest sense I would have no doubt supported you. I mean truly liberal. Maybe you should listen to some of the more extremely liberal people in the area that have quite a bit to say. I was not happy with the desire to control and lock up other people because some do not like what they are doing. I guarantee you that most of the women in prostitution in Northeast Kansas City do not like what they are doing either.
Voting is not too much unlike playing the lottery. You cast your ballot and just cross your fingers knowing the next day you will discover you are disappointed. I don’t think I have ever voted for a winning candidate. I am happy with that. I would hate to wake up and see that the guy I voted for was the one doing all this bullshit. Now that may be a possibility. I have lately been more and more attracted to the “Vote For Nobody” concept. But I went. I voted for Proposition C and I voted for J.J. Rizzo in the Democratic Primaries. I was beyond shocked to see that J.J. Rizzo beat Will Royster by 650 to 644. Literally six votes. I hope my articles didn’t persuade anyone, then his reign of power could be even more my fault. The blood is on my hands. I know they were read by more than 650 people which was the amount that actually voted for Rizzo.
J.J. Rizzo comes from another one of those powerful patriarchal families of Kansas City. So where does that leave Kansas City? No Republicans, thank God, just J.J. Rizzo vs. the Libertarian Sean O’toole. Here I am looking at a Man who is influenced by Rothbard vs. the Patriarchy perpetuating itself. Gee, that’s a hard decision. From everything I’ve heard from Sean O’Toole he does not seem to want the job. Here is an Austrian minded accountant. Gee, I wonder who gets my vote. This is the guy that wakes up and checks Lew Rockwell every morning.
Sean O’Toole doesn’t seem to have his future hinged on this race. He said that if he did win the first thing he would do is demand a re-count. Taking this job would be a step down for Sean. He seems to be doing this more to educate and reach people. Sean attended a debate between himself, J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster held by the league of women voters in KC. When he was given a chance to answer before the others the response from J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster was often the same. “Well, really Sean is right.” That, Sean said is what he wanted. That is what he was looking for.
I’m sorry Sean, I have to vote for you. In fact I think I may push to try and get some other votes for you. I couldn’t live with the thought that I may have helped elect this Republicrat by my vote. I may just burn in hell for that.
Too many will brush aside the Libertarian Party. Don’t let J.J. Rizzo get handed this election. Make him fight for it. We all know the democrats have this seat without question. I have no faith in our system whatsoever. I’m not fooled into believing politicians do anything for anyone but themselves and their careers. I do however feel that if J.J. Rizzo wants power over me I want him to work for it.
Your vote is not your voice. Your vote is an illusion that you are somehow getting a say in this bullshit, but I’ll be damned if I don’t at least see some competition in this. Just look at how many seats are uncontested. The power is being handed to the rich and powerful elite. Ideally I want to take their power away, but until then we can at least give some resistance. The game will not be won in the political arena. The system will not abolish itself, but in the end maybe we can make life a little more difficult and maybe we can block a few tyrants. How do I check “abolish” this office? Where is the vote for getting rid of the power over us? I get to choose my slave masters every blue moon when they are contested. It’s like winning the lottery, only in the lottery there is the obscure slim chance something good will happen. Here the outcome is bad no matter which slave master you choose. And this “If you don’t vote don’t complain” mindset is utter bullshit. What are people supposed to vote for? Most of these seats I see are uncontested. There is no choice! I want to see an option to get rid of an office or to leave it empty. Then maybe you might claim there is some other choice on the ballot itself. Republicans and Democrats are no choice just what we have in rule. The real choices and changes lie in education and direct action not politics.
UPDATE: In the heat of all this anti SOAP/SODA sentiment I shot myself in the foot. By picking up that democratic ballot I passed the Libertarian Party Ballot up. Here I wake up and see the only person I had any desire to see in office had lost. Cisse Spragins lost in the primary and I don’t think I can forgive myself at this point. I was certain she had it. I was wrong, sadly drastically wrong. I had just assumed when November came around she would be on the ballot and I would cast my vote. I have little desire to vote in November with her out of the race, she was the one thing that kept me thinking I may vote in November. I don’t know if I will or not at this point. Sean O’Toole would be the only other reason I would consider it at this point.
The Anti-Migrant movement often uses the single defense of “legal” vs. “illegal” as if they are on some sanctimonious crusade to defend the law of the state. You can see the ignorance of the “law” stance in my article: Rule of Law. Now that the precious law is no longer on the side of the anti-migrant pro 1070 group their king tyrant comes forward with statements that reveal he cares nothing for the law.
“It’s my job,” said Arpaio, standing beside a sheriff’s truck that has a number for an immigration hot line written on its side. “I have two state (immigration) laws that I am enforcing. It’s not federal, it’s state.”
Here we see Arpaio is not trying his damnedest to find some defense of his actions. Despite the law no longer supporting his Nationalist views he is going to go forward in enforcing a law that has yet become law by the legal system these statists so gladly embrace.
It’s all fun and games and the minute they don’t like the law they all of a sudden see their “rule of law” defense as the bullshit it is but only in favor of their claiming more power over human beings.
So, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is going to be kidnapping people off of the streets without the “law” to back him. When will this criminal pay for his crimes? It’s about time Sheriff Joe was held accountable for the aggressions he inflicts on others.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor’s Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their “posterity” to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.
So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend “to secure to them the blessings of liberty.” The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their “posterity” to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not “to secure to them the blessings of liberty,” but to make slaves of them; for if their “posterity” are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.
It cannot be said that the Constitution formed “the people of the United States,” for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of “the people” as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as “we,” nor as “people,” nor as “ourselves.” Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any “posterity.” It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.
Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.
Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the “posterity” of those who established it.
- Lysander Spooner
I am uncertain of how much support H.R. 5741 will do in the house. Part of me sees it as ridiculous, but with the power individuals invest in the words written by these men and women labeled as “law” nothing shocks me. H.R. 5741 is labeled the “Universal National Service Act.” This is just another of the many examples of nationalism in the united states. It describes itself as a bill:
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
What wartime? We seem to be a nation that has been at war for decades. When we have no enemy we invent them. Prohibition has become the “War on Drugs.” We war against concepts like “terrorism.” Then we go to the endless oil wars in the middle east. We start out waring over an oil company and overthrowing governments in the 1950s’ and this has continued to build and spiral out of control.
As the empire grows taxation can only go so far until you must directly serve the state. We labeled our nationalism and defense of culture “homeland security” one of the most nationalist concepts in the United States. A war against people who have not paid homage to the state by paying the state for it’s freedom and legitimacy as a citizen. The Republicans mostly want those people out of the country. The Democrats want those people to be registered in the databases of the state. Both parties want to trap those people in the system and control over them so they can steal the products of their labor. Now they are seeking them to directly serve the state with the rest of us.
The term ‘national service’ means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
This also seems to be giving more direct power to one office and title to determine how you will serve the state. You may be of the camp that President Obama means the best for us all, but I ask you what about when the Republicans regain control? What about the next George W. Bush?
We are looking at what seems to be mostly a new draft and forced servitude to the military in this bill. It also extends to other areas. What I spoke of in my articles pointing out the brainwashing of the individual by the state through it’s military is no doubt essential to making this happen. Read the article here. Devotion to the state will only increase at this point.
If something like this becomes law the brainwashing will not be limited to those who choose to be a part of it. It will be forced on a majority it seems. Every able bodied citizen shall be devoted to the state.
Many places are calling it the Slavery Bill. I would be more eager to compare it to other nationalist movements. Our sense of nationalism is strong especially with the right in certain areas. The left has embraced a certain nationalist devotion to the new Obama administration. These two factions both devoted to the state show how more and more are coming to worship the state.
In the United States nationalism has been whitewashed by renaming it patriotism. The masses worship the demigods and writing of the state. Thou shalt not make any graven image unless it is of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Barack Obama. As I spoke of in the Natural History of the State, state apologetics once consisted of the claim to divinity which evolved to the divine rights of kings. Now the actual claim to divinity is not specifically stated but all the elements remain.
Look at your coinage, whose face is on it? Look at Egypt and the claim the Pharaohs had to divinity and the statues erected in their honor. Once the Greeks and Romans would erect these statues of their deities. Now we erect the statues for our modern American demigods. They litter the capitol and our state capitals.
There is s sense of devotion that any dissent or question of certain accepted norms and powers of the state is a form of blasphemy. Did you let your flag touch the ground? Don’t burn the flag. Support the military power without question.
There is even adherence to the religious texts of the law. The unquestionable document of these being the Constitution. They believe this piece of paper and adherence to it will bring them freedom, success and the rights. There is the belief that the state teaches and the cult following adheres to that their rights are derived from their religious document. This will lead them to the American Dream their heaven on earth. Just as the deity would keep them safe and provide so will the state and its constitution if only you follow the writings of the divinely inspired words.
Thou shalt have no other gods before you. The pantheon of the state is the only one we are to worship. All other nations are to be rejected. Those evil anarchists don’t even believe in the state. Wave your red white and blue.
The “Rule Of Law” argument or defense has been used many times by many people interested in conserving the state. It is often used to defend the action of the state. This is the equivalent of someone telling you that they are right simply because they say so. This has been used recently in my neighborhood to defend an attack on the poverty stricken as well as with the anti-migrant battle of the conservatives.
The only defense these people often give is “We are a country of laws.” This has to be one of the most uncritical responses any person can give. It assumes with some religiosity that this law their demigod politicians have placed on paper is somehow sacred. It is a similar line of thought to “Pharaoh is god.” The title we have given this thing makes it worthy of our worship and servitude.
The “law” that is spoken of is not an actual law like the law of gravity. It is the invented concepts of mostly rich and powerful men who have written down what they want to do to other human beings or what they want to force other human beings to do. This is all the “Rule Of Law” is. There are true laws such as gravity, and we have still attempted to break those, and then there is the desire of the powerful to control other human beings.
To use the “Rule Of Law” defense only shows that one has no true ethical defense for their actions. This leads to telling people that they have written on paper that they are permitted to use guns against you to obtain what they want. The “law” is the stance of the individual who can not even recite the apologetics of the state, but has accepted the assumed omnipotence of the state as sacred.
The “Rule Of Law” defense requires no critical thinking of why something should or should not be the way it is. It frees the individual from ethical behavior by excusing the unethical with a phrase that many imagine as an equivalent of something holy or good. The rule of Hitler’s law slaughtered human beings. The rule of law condoned hunting down slaves.
Law is not order. This is a myth. The lack of law will not bring chaos. Order can be found outside of forcing people to do as you wish with their guns.
It is July 3rd. I went to get a haircut yesterday. The barber was a great guy. The small talk began. I mentioned my time in the Marines and it happened. The most awkward thing that always happens and I have no idea how to respond. He thanked me for “my service.” I just didn’t know how to respond. I was the oppressor. I was the part of the government whose job it is to commit mass murder around the world. Still, it could have been worse, I could have been a Pig. The small talk continued on with everyone talking about the same general things. Family and friends at BBQ’s and fireworks or holiday plans was the general topic of the barber shop.
I was asked what I was planning on the 4th. I had no idea what to say so I simply said”I’m not really into that kind of thing.” This is the dilemma I face often. The majority have never examined the system or even questioned outside of learning the apologetics of the left or the right. What was I to say? Your flag represents the largest criminal syndicate in the history of mankind. Your “Independence day” is a lie, there is no independence within a state. You will be extolling the virtue of mass murderers.
I passed on explaining. I knew the patriotism they had would only be offended, and I don’t really want to upset the community barber shop. I really just want to get along and help them have a nice day. It upsets people if you speak against what they have been taught to believe.
Tomorrow is July 4th. They call it Independence day, which could not be further from the truth. Some of you Anarchists will go to back yard BBQ’s and some will visit family. Most of us won’t make an upset because the people we love are enjoying the moment. They are having fun with their food and fireworks.
I plan on doing my celebration on the 5th. July 5th is my new day to celebrate. It won’t be too big, something little maybe some veggie burgers because the red blooded American would cringe at that. Maybe I will do something more elegant with wine, cheese and a fruit & veggie platter. That does sound really good and I would like my anarchist holiday to be a little more sophisticated than ground dead cow and Budweiser beer.The statist can celebrate the union of their states. I will celebrate ‘after the states rule. I will celebrate after the state when we will abolish the state. They will celebrate the birth of the unholy union of their states on the 4th of july. I will take the 5th of july to celebrate anarchy.
Join me on the 5th in your own celebration. Celebrate the 5th of July this will be the true “independence day”.
Anderson Crenshaw a Republican Representative in the House from Florida’s 4th district supports Tea Parties. He telling us that he is a small government type who opposes the big government spending and taxation. I love Twitter because it gives me a chance to get these snippets from the House and Senate. I get to see the image they want to portray and call these Federalists out on their word. We get to see the hypocrisy and are given a record of it online. We can hold these people accountable now. Well, Mr. Crenshaw, you sir are full of feces. You are not for TEA Parties. You are not for less spending and less taxation. Floridians listen up. The guy is full of it and should not see the house again.
He got on twitter trying to get in on the tea party enthusiasm. I love this being able to respond to what these people say. I love being able to check what they are pushing and see if it is true or not. Just take a look for yourself here.
These republicans have repeatedly voted for excessive spending and they supported the bailout garbage. Now they want to shanghai the tea parties and pander to us as if they are small government limit federal spending low tax types. It is just not true.
Read the rest of this entry »
Read the rest of this entry »
The White house is said to cut 100 million dollars of waste out. Now many say this is worthless, which it essentially is, we must not completely discredit it. It is estimated that there are over 300 million Americans so that’s roughly 30 cents an American give or take. Now this is a tax cut that even the homeless would pass on, but that is not the point. There are some who say this is in response to TEA parties, and others who will use it to discredit the movement. They will also forget what a small percentage this is out of the multiple billions of dollars of bailouts we are getting into and the 3.67 trillion dollar budget. 100 million, that doesn’t even scratch the federal budget. It’s almost as if each American were asked to find a way to live off of a dollar less this month than they did last month. Well, most would find that dollar on the ground in spare change.
Read the rest of this entry »
Read the rest of this entry »
Oh, the madness, the pure addiction. Politicians are addicted to their megalomania, pure raw power money and greed. We political news junkies are hooked to politics like a heroine junkie. We can’t get enough. It can get in your brain and take over. It drives you mad with passion and frustration. Then we go at it tearing each other apart. The media feeds into it. The media perpetuates the insanity. They know they offer a far more addictive product than the tobacco companies, but nobody will say it out loud. They truly profit from human suffering and tragedy. They hold more power than presidents. CNN, FOX, ABC all have the power to make or break political careers and the people flock to the bias. They push the bias for ratings and this is done for the simple drive for advertising dollars. Truth is relative to them and they don’t care if they destroy you or profit from your tragedy or despair. They only want the buck. Journalistic integrity is a myth and a joke, and we are all addicted.
Politicians are the biggest bottom feeders. They not only thrive off of despair and problems of others they legislate and dictate accordingly finding ways to profit off of the people directly, not off of the advertisers who are exploiting the media.
Read the rest of this entry »
Read the rest of this entry »
Mike Ferguson, the Libertarian spokesman sent out this letter today in regards to the MIAC incident.
Missouri Libertarian Party Welcomes Resolution to MIAC Memo Controversy
Regarding Third Parties, Commends MPS Director John Britt for Responding
Positively to Concerns About Political Profiling